The "Food Police" are looking for a revenue stream to fund their oppression of people who like food!!

7:51 pm February 2, 2012

Alan Watson wrote :

The federal government has had a pointless War on Fat for 40 years. Now scientists are finally pointing to the real culprit behind obesity, diabetes and heart disease: refined sugar. This is not about "food police;" this is about uncovering the root cause of our chronic disease epidemic. I find it hard to believe that people are whining about this!

7:55 pm February 2, 2012

Hilda0414 wrote :

I agree...it is horrible for us....shoots insulin into our systems and added nutritionless calories. BUT SURELY there is a way to change behavior other than TAXING.......keep the government out of our personal affairs!

8:18 pm February 2, 2012

Ali Young wrote :

This is huge news because almost everything contains some type of sugar. I tend to stay away from candy and obvious junk food but sometimes it's unavoidable.

8:35 pm February 2, 2012

Mark wrote :

The science is irrelevant. Nothing should be taxed in a free market economy.

9:04 pm February 2, 2012

BoJeaux wrote :

Because all this nanny state c)rap has worked so well.

9:44 pm February 2, 2012

Gwen wrote :

I find it frustrating and irresponsible that the Nature article written by Dr. Lustig is behind a paywall of $32 to access it, while the RESPONSE by the sugar industry is freely available on their website. This unconscionable barricading of information behind a financial hurdle is asinine. It's going to be, what, 4 pages long? And they want the cost of a meal for two at a decent restaurant for it? Two bags of groceries? A tank and a half of gas? Are you NUTS? Meanwhile, the opponents speak for free. Just. Bloody. Lovely.

9:44 pm February 2, 2012

William wrote :

Dear lord. California raisin science. Proof positive a turkey with a phd is still a turkey

10:17 pm February 2, 2012

Tim wrote :

Another regulatory, business killing, freedom limiting liberal idea. This is pure garbage.

10:26 pm February 2, 2012

Andrea wrote :

Auugghh!! It's TYPE 2 diabetes that is caused, in part, by diet. Type 1 diabetes is NOT caused by diet; it is an autoimmune condition. Get your facts correct!

10:26 pm February 2, 2012

KJ wrote :

We need to tax stupid ideas. My body my choice.

10:27 pm February 2, 2012

MedicalQuack wrote :

I have a better idea here which I call the Alternative Millionaire's tax and have not received a hands down on this idea yet and that would be to tax the corporations, banks, hedge funds, Walgreens, Optum, you name it who mine and sell our "free taxpayer data". If you keep up with the big corporate profits and insurance companies in particular they should be happy to pay a stiff license and be taxed as well as disclosed who, what and where they sell on a public disclosure site. Why?

This would put some immediate money back out to the middle class so we could again afford to get our health taken care of as the reasons the profits are so big at health insurers is that we cant' afford to go so let's fix it and get some money back as corporate America should not be make billions in profits from the data mining algorithms and get our taxpayer information for free. The states in some areas have had to put governor software in to keep data mining bots out. as the miners don;t pay to update either so we get stuck with bad or erroneous information that doesn't stop.

Doctors and healthcare would have the funds to educate and that's the bottom line not a tax like this.

We are all under the Attack of the Killer Algorithms today in one form or another and Richard Cordray has a big job taking on the flaws in the math and formulas created for profit only. You can't talk to them, see them or feel those algos that made decisions that run on servers 24/7 and make life impacting decisions about all of us. A sugar tax would require yet another set of algorithms to even put something like that in place and more money for the software guys to develop it, so again education and being able to afford care is the key here, not a tax.

We could also look at getting rid of that federal excise tax on tires too as it makes as little sense as a sugar tax, except we don't eat tires,yet, and let's hope ti doesn't reach that point .

10:38 pm February 2, 2012

Barry wrote :

Dear Gov t

May I go to the bathroom?

10:51 pm February 2, 2012

Anushka. wrote :

It is laughable that in the 21st century, scientists have to emphasize to adults that sugar is bad. It is true that the food industry has duped the unsuspecting consumer by stealthily including sugar i.e. bread in the grocery store has high fructose corn syrup, yet as adults not paying attention to the nutritional content of food is pretty irresponsible.

10:52 pm February 2, 2012

JeffT wrote :

Over the years, I have come to distrust a lot of "science." We're told to do or not to do such and such. Then we're told it's ok to do such and such. Whether it's coffee, oat bran, margarine, second hand smoke, "science" is always changing its mind. Maybe there is a hidden agenda with these scientists. Maybe it's just bad data. Maybe they skew data to make their point. Whatever, I live by using everything in moderation and with the realization I'm going to die someday and, no matter what science tells me, that ending will not be prevented.

11:08 pm February 2, 2012

Bobby wrote :

Great idea, long overdue. Using taxes as incentives to encourage good behaviors and curtail hurtful habits is an excellent way to allow freedom of choice while addressing a major problem on a societal scale. Have you ever tried to eat healthy outside of your own kitchen? It's not easy; sugar, fat, and nutritionless crap everywhere. I'm tired of companies making a profit on damaging products and then dumping the true cost on society. Cigarettes should be legal, but the full cost of the health care costs of the consumers should be applied as a tax that would hopefully decrease demand and help pay for the clean up; same for sugar and diabetes.

12:11 am February 3, 2012

MattR wrote :

No way, no more regulation on personal choices. Period

1:27 am February 3, 2012

Carol Thompson wrote :

Lustig and all of his ilk are charlatans who deliberately commit scientific fraud. They use studies that ignore the role of infection, in order to falsely scapegoat other peoples' lifestyles, and inflict their own on everyone. They conspire to keep the public ignorant of even the most elementary facts, such as that the death rates from heart disease have steadily declined ever since the 1960s, in order to deceive the public that there's a public health crisis, and that submitting to their quackery is the remedy.

Their fanatical, cult-like ideology is founded on the pseudo-science of the Third Reich. The difference is that the Nazis could hide behind the excuse of ignorance, while these criminals CANNOT!

They get their funding from the government. For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our Constitutional rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if it purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony health dangers is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats.

2:30 am February 3, 2012

JayB wrote :

While I have never done any research into this subject, I can tell you two things: (1) the more sugary foods I eat, the more my body craves them so it is certainly an addictive food additive (and as such, doesn't that inherently qualify it as a drug?); (2) the only research one needs to do is stand in any crowded common area in this country and see the devastation poor dietary and exercise habits have wrought on us as a people. We are gluttonous fat-asses in this country and we need to be weaned from the teat of all these corrosive, poisonous food additives. AND, people should have to pay a graduated insurance premium based on how overweight they are versus their ideal body weight. You're right; it is your choice, but the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for your fat ass, and the environment certainly shouldn't have to be razed to provide you with the resources you need to continue making poor dietary choices.

7:35 am February 3, 2012

guest wrote :

I propose we tax the use of elevators and mandate the purchase of condoms (of course make the IRS in charge of keeping track and fines for under purchase) since both of these will make for a more healthy populous. Please, although the logic is as sound as that used by the heroes of this article (more sound if you consider per review vs preliminary studies), this is sarcasm.

7:59 am February 3, 2012

guest wrote :

Jay B your logic is not sound. Your personal experience with sugars does not demonstrate addictiveness. There do exist people who's calorie intake far exceeds their body mass for a number of reasons, exercise to thyroid conditions and a everything in between. I consider your belief that control of human behavior can or should be enacted by a government is a very dark and slippery slope.

8:06 am February 3, 2012

Anonymous wrote :

More advertisement regarding health choices and the effects of poor food choices on the longterm health of people would be less "pushy" I like the fact that some insurance companys give discounts when policy holders show proof of working out or nonsmoking. Michelle Obaba ( I lean republican), does a great job on Disney Channel ecucating and encouraging our youth to get active and eat healthy for a better life.

10:31 am February 3, 2012

Anonymous wrote :

This makes me want to eat sugar MORE. A doughnut or piece of pie is now going to be civil disobedience--well, bring it!

12:50 pm February 3, 2012

SE wrote :

I'm confused about the controversy here. I'm all for a free market society, but so long as we are burdened by the health choices of others, what's the matter with supply-side incentivization? Isn't taxing and zoning the proper way to encourage behaviors that serve us? I'd much prefer that over prohibition of any kind! I have access to this Nature article and read it for myself. They make a strong argument that it is in the interest of the nation to address this problem aggressively:

"The United States spends $65 billion in lost productivity and $150 billion on health-care resources annually for morbidities associated with metabolic syndrome. Seventy-five per cent of all US health-care dollars are now spent on treating these diseases and their resultant disabilities. Because about 25% of military applicants are now rejected for obesity-related reasons, the past three US surgeons general and the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff have declared obesity a “threat to national security”."

If there's a way we can tackle this using economic principles and without actually removing personal choice, I'm all for it. And no, science isn't wishy-washy bologna; I've read much of this data myself and participated in diabetes research. I refuse to eat sugar because the research I've conducted myself makes me genuinely fearful of it. I shouldn't be one of a small group that gets to reap the benefits of this knowledge.

2:37 pm February 3, 2012

Jeffrey wrote :

I heard Dr. Lustig say in his YouTube Harvard Law School Lecture, "if we ended all sugar (beet, cane and corn) subsidies by US Taxpayers, that is part of a better solution". Years ago I discovered sugar is a toxin. I try to avoid products with added sugar and find it is almost impossible to abstain! Check out a book tilted "Sugar Blues" by William Dufty --among others. My Kansas August allergies are gone, I feel better and I know I've made the right decision!

6:49 am February 5, 2012

NJJohn wrote :

Using tax policy to discourage or encourage behavior is bad for revenue and those taxed.

To put it another way, sin taxes never deliver the promised revenue nor do they discourage the sinner.

5:45 pm February 5, 2012

Sweet Placebo wrote :

I'm sympathetic to all who want to keep big government out of our lives. Yet the dilemma exists that people put themselves at risk by crappy diets and we all must ultimately pay for this with high insurance rates, etc. since it would be unethical to refuse treatment to them. This lack of personal accountability, forcing those of us who do the hard work of staying healthy to pay, very much goes against conservative values!!!

8:32 am February 6, 2012

Sophie Kamveris wrote :

Where along the way did we lose our inherent right to either “live to eat” or “eat to live” in this country? I don't think regulating sugar consumption through taxation is a fair or viable solution. And really, hasn’t history taught us that such deleterious decrees don’t sit well with its citizens?

Of course, a lot has changed in this country since our forefathers’ time. We drive to work, take elevators up and down all day, and drive home. This is the world our kids are growing up in and this lack of daily physical activity plays a significant role in the obesity crisis. Rather than penalizing them for buying a soda because it contains sugar, let’s educate them on the importance of exercise and proper nutrition. Unlike the tactics Lustig proposes, these strategies are fair and support long-term health goals for all Americans.

I suggest we start with reinstating physical education programs and serving healthy meals in our schools. Education on a balanced diet, which can include sugars and fats in moderation, and promoting exercise, should be our common goal for the next generation.

Author is a registered dietitian and consultant to food and beverage companies, including Coca Cola.

9:58 am February 6, 2012

John wrote :

What a surprise...researchers from Univ of Cal in San Francisco wanting to ban something and control what we eat. Somehow, I think my family and I can figure out what has too much sugar and how much of it we're going to eat.
We won't be eating any tofu with cardboard and black bean birthday cake anytime soon.

The diabetes epidemic coincides with the introduction of massive quantities of High Fructose Corn Syrup into our food supply beginning in the 70's. Type 2 diabetes used to be called Adult Onset Diabetes, but the name has been recently changed to Type 2 because it is no longer an adult onset condition. It is now affecting children as young as eight years old. Children are the main consumers of fruit juice and other drinks such as sweetened sodas, and High Fructose Corn Syrup is the main sweetening agent used in these products. The consumer should not be punished when it is the food manufacturers who are poisoning our food supply with High Fructose Corn Syrup.

In an attempt to trick the public, who has become aware of the dangers of High Fructose Corn Syrup, the food companies have changed the name of High Fructose Corn Syrup to "corn sugar" in an attempt to deceive the public into believing that there is no High Fructose Corn Syrup in their products. This problem needs to be tackled from the other end where it originates, not from the bottom like this professor suggests. He wants to take the food out of the mouths of babes instead of out of the FAT CAT's pocket. I agree that we need less High Fructose Corn Syrup in our diet, but give me choices instead of punishing me because I don't have any choices.

1:26 pm February 6, 2012

James wrote :

Educate people about HFCS and let the consumer make the decision. If we've learned nothing else, we have learned that foods that the "experts" consider poison are soon found to be not harmful at all. Saccharin got a bad rap in the sixties and it turned out to that the results could not be replicated in humans...rats were given the equivalent of a person eating several pounds per day.
Anything, when taken in enough quantity, can be harmful.
Consumers are smart enough to make decisions on their own.

9:11 pm February 6, 2012

Tom wrote :

We should also regulate fruits - because if you only eat fruits your entire life, you will die from no protien.
And we should regulate chicken - because if you only eat chicken your whole life you will die from a lack of certain vitamins, and nutrients such as calcium.
And we should regulate the consumption of water, because if you drink too much you could die from that too.
Man. It should all just be REGULATED. REGULATIONS are good. Look at California. They are the most successful state, and have no financial problems at all.

6:27 am February 7, 2012

guest wrote :

@ James--HFCS is being forced upon us....we do NOT have a choice! About the only things you could buy from a grocery store without HFCS would be from the fresh produce aisle and the fresh meat aisle. Just about everything else contains HFCS including bread and dairy products. Someone does not want the public to become educated about HFCS. There was a very revealing study published by a top Ivy League University, Princeton, about how HFCS is turned into fat immediately in the metabolic process and is not burned as energy, unlike natural sugar. That study was almost two years ago and no one in the media has reported anything about Princeton's discovery. I have personally written to many people in positions of power who could do something about this, but no one has responded to my letters nor done anything about this. Why is no one talking about this? Instead, the media is reporting on this Lustig character who is barking up the wrong tree. It is HFCS that is poisoning us and causing the epidemic of diabetes which has now begun to affect children! How many children will have to lose their lives as young adults due to the complications of diabetes before someone who can do something about this will?

4:36 pm February 7, 2012

Todd McKay wrote :

This is Orwellian because the truth is that sugar is probably the safest food possible. For a scientist to call it toxic is ridiculous. You could not OD on sugar. It is possible to OD even on water (due to electrolyte imbalance) but you could not OD on sugar so how could it be toxic?

Oh these are not real scientist they are Californians liberal scientist. The same folks that ensure that a bag of play sand purchased at the local Ace Hardware is labeled as a carcinogen. Thank you for keeping me safe and good luck banning sugar.

11:31 am February 9, 2012

Julia wrote :

If they do regulate sugar it will be good for me because sugar upsets my stomach and I have to avoid it. I also have other food allergies, so I always read labels. Food processors do add sugar to almost everything such as frozen french fries, pasta sauce, tortillas, and dairy-free pizza, to name a few. It's very hard to avoid. They deliberately try to hide it by calling it names like "sucrose", "cane juice", "dextrose" (the sugar from corn), "apple juice concentrate" and whatever other names they can think of. If they do regulate sugar and manufacturers stop adding it to everything, there will be many more foods I can eat! Oh boy, that will be wonderful!
BTW, you don't have to drink soda or fruit-flavored drinks. I've been getting along for years on water, unsweetened tea, and the very occasional diet coke. You should be able to get water or hot tea at most places...

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.